Something tells me that if I were smart I'd stay out of this.... Nonetheless, a few very brief observations.
1. It is naive to think that people who have spent thousands of dollars on cables, for example, are going to be convinced to try DBX testing of their investment against zip cord from home depot. Should they agree to make such a test and subsequently be unable to tell the difference between the two, it would be doubly naive to think that they wouldn't discount the testing methodology.
2. It is juvenile to say, "Have you done DBX testing yourself? If not, shut up." (I've heard that said by persons on both sides of the argument.) The literature is replete with reports of carefully and thoughtfully conducted DBX tests of audio equipment. Go read them, then comment knowledgably, one way or the other.
3. Although I am, myself, an advocate of DBX evaluation, I must say that I find the tone of many objectivists (skeptics, you-fill-in) more than a little mean-spirited. They seem to feel a compulsion to be spoilers.
4. On the other hand, I wonder why so many people who say, "I know I can hear differences; I don't need to do any testing" are so reluctant to demonstrate this ability.
5. This is a hobby, not an exercise in public policy. If someone is persuaded that he can hear a significant improvement in sound if he shines a blue light on his CDs before playing them, what business is it of anyone else to put him down about it?
6. Conversely, if a knowledgable listener participates in a properly conducted DBX test of an off-the-shelf Sony amp from Best Buy versus a Mark Levinson at 100X times the price and can't reliably discern which is which, why should anyone decry either the testing methodology or the listener's hearing?
7. Let's be honest. Most of us would drive a Land Rover in preference to a Sportage if we could afford it, or a Maserati in preference to a Miata. Nothing to be ashamed of about that.
Let's stop goring each other's oxen and just enjoy the music.
1. It is naive to think that people who have spent thousands of dollars on cables, for example, are going to be convinced to try DBX testing of their investment against zip cord from home depot. Should they agree to make such a test and subsequently be unable to tell the difference between the two, it would be doubly naive to think that they wouldn't discount the testing methodology.
2. It is juvenile to say, "Have you done DBX testing yourself? If not, shut up." (I've heard that said by persons on both sides of the argument.) The literature is replete with reports of carefully and thoughtfully conducted DBX tests of audio equipment. Go read them, then comment knowledgably, one way or the other.
3. Although I am, myself, an advocate of DBX evaluation, I must say that I find the tone of many objectivists (skeptics, you-fill-in) more than a little mean-spirited. They seem to feel a compulsion to be spoilers.
4. On the other hand, I wonder why so many people who say, "I know I can hear differences; I don't need to do any testing" are so reluctant to demonstrate this ability.
5. This is a hobby, not an exercise in public policy. If someone is persuaded that he can hear a significant improvement in sound if he shines a blue light on his CDs before playing them, what business is it of anyone else to put him down about it?
6. Conversely, if a knowledgable listener participates in a properly conducted DBX test of an off-the-shelf Sony amp from Best Buy versus a Mark Levinson at 100X times the price and can't reliably discern which is which, why should anyone decry either the testing methodology or the listener's hearing?
7. Let's be honest. Most of us would drive a Land Rover in preference to a Sportage if we could afford it, or a Maserati in preference to a Miata. Nothing to be ashamed of about that.
Let's stop goring each other's oxen and just enjoy the music.